In order to propel wireless Internet connectivity in rural areas, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking at granting unlicensed wireless devices access to a spectrum range. The 3650-3700MHz range, a.k.a. the “3650 MHz band,” is currently used by satellite operators at lower levels than the ones being proposed for use. The FCC is currently seeking industry comment on the proposal, with no date set for when a decision may be made.

Wireless broadband, using the WiMAX standard, would have a range of 30 miles, and data speeds of up to 70Mbps.

Opening up the spectrum to unlicensed devices has raised concern, both with the satellite industry and other communications companies. Sprint, for instance, has indicated that interference from such devices would be nearly impossible to properly detect, and the Satellite Industry Association was also worried about spectrum crowding.

CHRISTOPHER’S OPINION
Crack open that spectrum, baby! Interference, shminterference–Sprint doesn’t want this because then I really don’t need it for my IP/VPN WAN. I can chose someone else without having to dig a line to my building.

Wireless broadband would completely alter how telecommunications are provisioned and installed. It would give us, the customers, complete freedom on installing circuits, bypassing the juggernaut that is the LEC. I could put in a network without conduit, d-marks, COs–oh, what a wonderful world it would be!

In all sincerity, wireless broadband is the next logical step. There are so many signals traveling in the skies right now that it is conceivable that misconfiguration could cause interference–but I have faith that this can be figured out.

Heck, we can put roving vehicles on Mars, how hard can this be?

USER COMMENTS 24 comment(s)

Electrical(11:34am EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
I still say electrical lines should be the next step in rural comunications… most of them already have power lines… and you need them for a computer mostley anyways… so why not do it through the power companies?

anyways… first post – by illero

Competitors just JAM(11:55am EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
35 bucks worth of parts and a backup up in a tree, your company dont do jack on net, its wireless link, jammed. Smoke that in the LEC pipe. – by MaBell

Old MacDonald(12:01pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
Sooo…my tax dollars are going to subsidies to support failing farms….will I now be paying for their milking machines to be online?

Rural areas do need connected, how and when is the question. Wireless? Are we really ready to roll it out? I guess we will find out. – by CD

BPL & Wireless(12:20pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
On broadband over powerlines: it sounds great for rural areas, but the signal needs a repeater box every 1500-2500 feet along power lines and a box at every transformer. Rural areas have around 10 customers per line mile, and often 1 customer per transformer. And those boxes cost several thousand each.

As for wireless, any signal of 2.4GHz and above, including the proposed 3.65-3.7 range, needs direct line of site. This might work well in the flat Midwest, but in areas with hills, the signal can’t go more than a few miles.

From current experience as a network admin in rural North Carolina, I know we need broadband options and that none out there are feasable without very large grants for capital expenses. – by Noah

re: illero(12:27pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
Agreed. Use the infrastructure already in existence. That would also be a cost effective way to network appliances. I for one would really like to be able to control my house from my office.

…err… not for any real reason… I just wanna, k? – by Johny-D

How much does it cost?(12:27pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
Most rural Americans can barely afford a dial up connection. I’m one of them. These things always sound great til they tell me the price. I still think freeing up the bandwidth is a great idea and won’t cost taxpayers anything. – by TinMan

re: CD(12:44pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
“Sooo…my tax dollars are going to subsidies to support failing farms….will I now be paying for their milking machines to be online?”

How exactly are you paying for this with your taxes? If you truly are paying for this through taxes, then isn’t it fair to say that people in rural areas paid taxes so that you could have high speed internet years ago?– by ignorance

Electrical lines(1:02pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
Trouble with electrical lines is this country. We use too many step down transformers. (they scramble the signal). We would need to change the whole electrical system first.– by rko

Security?(1:08pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
What about security? I mean, you are just broadcasting over your little wireless network which now spans a greater distance? I don’t know a whole lot about wireless networks, but hasn’t this been a concern even with the far less powerfull 802.11b/g? – by ChuckyCheese

deja riccochet vu(1:27pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
wasn’t this happening in 2001 w/riccocet -the paul allen et al network that the us govt used post-9/11 when all the cellular went to hell-and-then-some {by stealthily rebooting the in-bankruptcy NY network and assets[streetlightpole mounted transponders- that communicated in a cellular-like fashion w/laptop mounted same @0.5-1.0 MBps (see ZDNet article for more on in-cab web surfing during double rush hour)]} you could do this in 2001 for 80/mo, use it all day and roam lots of lucky cities @ no add’l costs. ps they had the hottest ad w/the beemer roadster from which that avant-noir couple were sending email on the fly.
MORTUUS EST. PAX VOBISCUM! – by neidr

Not more RFI(1:37pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
I am going to have to put another layer of aluminum foil on my thought retention hat. – by RCAman

Electrical lines(2:41pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
Transformers are not a problem. You can jumper around them with a wireless link or a fiber optic link. – by hatman

Re: Electrical Lines(4:35pm EST Fri Apr 16 2004)
Which is good, cause rko’s suggestion of restructering power systems is impossible – you think with the cost of copper doubled from 4 months ago that power companies could cost effectively install the 3 ft. thick conductors neccasary to reduce voltage drop to the point that we could push 120v for the distance we currently push high voltage? HAH! I think NOT. Not to mention all the other issues… – by Kadrel

Hmmm(7:46am EST Sat Apr 17 2004)
Ok, i have some experience at this, so i am gonna comment :)

One of the problems with setting up a network in the 2.4 GHZ range is the price of the equipment. At least a few hundred dollars for a good tranceiver, at least 5000 for a base station and aerial, switch etc, then you have to have a line put in to the next receiver and base station and so forth.

The key to make it work, is to make the tranceivers for the home user cheap and affordable (as in, the same price bracket as ADSL modems). As for range, the 2.4 GHZ band of wireless devices are fairly limted, the best i have heard for a household item is about 10 kays (6-7 miles), depending on the right aerial you have to go with it.

But, for urban situations, especially in small towns where there is no ADSL enabled exchange, wireless is definately the way to go, as laying fibre, or anything for that matter, is far more expensive.

I don’t know much about the higher frequencies of wireless comms, but if they have a larger range, then they should suit rural households.

But, if the telco’s eventually decide that fibre should replace copper wire for telephones, then the default choice for a broad band connection would be that it is much much faster, has far far better range and isn’t suseptible to any type of noise.

I guess for REALLY isolated farms, the only way to go would be sattelite.

Hope this helps :)– by Headley

You’re all ignorant.(6:17pm EST Sat Apr 17 2004)
I already have wireless broadband and I live 30 miles outside of Toledo, OH. My closest neighbor is a quarter of a mile away.

The tower that my system interfaces with is over 10 miles away. The cost is only $40 a month and the equipment is free. – by SteveB

Rural Electricfication History Lesson(10:36pm EST Mon Apr 19 2004)
On the subject of taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers put the Rural Electrification Administration into place in 1935 (aka FDR / The New Deal.) It was a simple process, and could be repeated for Rural Internet Access. Government loans to create Internet Co-Ops. Don’t laugh yet, 80% of the counties in the United States are serviced by an electric cooperative. These co-ops are owned by the consumers and make about $8000 per mile of line. Privately owned power companies generate about $70,000 of income per mile of line.

It seems to me Washington may have a vested interested in offering REA like loans to the coops again, this time to bring internet access to rural America. It isn’t likely to have quite the impact of electricity, but should rank up there with telephone service. – by Farm Broadcaster

Hmmmm(12:54am EST Tue Apr 20 2004)
Damn, that is pretty good, we will have to do something similar over here now :)– by Headley

comwavz(12:44pm EST Tue Aug 31 2004)
It would seem that Comwavz’s business plan was faulty, they should have charged more for the service. The company is closing on 9-30-2004, apparently forever. It is a shame because they did have what others did not, price, speed and reliability. – by pokey